Christ was not created!!!!

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 21 2010,08:24)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 21 2010,12:59) Yet we know that Christ Created, Show me scripturally. mike

are you serious?
Ok so we team up on Ed J on the other thread about this very same subject, and now your asking me for proof?

Its clear that Jesus Christ has participation in the Creation of the world according to Col 1:14-1:20

[SimplyForgiven]

HI MIke,

mikeboll64,Oct. wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

Let's cut to the chase here D.  NETBible is an admittedly trinitarian web-site.  If there was ANY viable evidence of “goings forth” actually meaning “activities”, they would not have even mentioned that it could mean “beginning”.  For to do so would deliver an immediate death blow to the trinity by implying that “God #2” had a “beginning”.  They know that the LXX and all the expert evidence supports “beginning” or “origin” – which mean the same thing here – so they added the “activities clause” to gain a little “reasonable doubt” for people like you who are so hell-bent on Jesus being God that you would buy into anything at all that keeps that dream alive.

Actually The only reason i mention activity is because you didnt mention it.  
I still want to see the proof of why they think so.
And none of my arguements support that line of reasoning.
So i havent even used it, I earlier just mentioned it since you didnt.   And you made arguement against it saying that it meant he had a beginning because of his first activities, and than i refuted.
Basically mike, I wouldnt used activities either until i see the line of reasoning why they would mention that.
Since i havent seen the proof, i wouldnt use it.

Quote

The Hebrew “yalad” means “brought forth – as in childbirth”.  So “goings forth” is like saying “the bringing forth of him”.  In other words, it says that Jesus was “brought forth” a long time ago.  That is why it is translated as “origin” and “beginning” almost always – because the experts agree that is what is meant.

In Hebrew, from the Net it uses this word.
mowtsa'ah 1) origin, place of going out from 1a) origin 1b) places of going out to or from 1b1) privy
and another site that i have looked at seconds this word.

Quote

Think about it D.  The entire “Jesus is God” doctrine hangs on “beginning” versus “activities” in Micah 5:2.  NETNotes admits it could mean “beginning”, so where does that leave the trinity and other such doctines?  It means you're hanging your whole “Jesus is God” doctrine on the fact that there is a small chance Micah 5:2 means “activities”.

I know you always want to go back to that subject.
but Im not trying to prove that Jesus is God in this thread. Im proving that Micah 5:2 does not suggest he had a beginning.
Christ was not created.
Actually it doesnt hang on Michah 5:2 there are plenty of versus that anyone can use to prove otherwise.  The point of this thread is to prove that Jesus was created, and this Doctrine of “Jesus was created” a long long time ago, hangs on a few verses like Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14 (which i already disproved) and now Micah 5:2 which however your the only one suggesting that it implies that he had a beginning, and even JA who doesnt believe Jesus is God doesnt agree with you.  The whole idea that Jesus was created hangs on a few scriptures Mike.

Quote

Okay, let's say for argument's sake that it does mean “activities”.  God's “activities” are not from “days of antiquity”, they are from everlasting.  Why would “Jesus-God's” activities have a “starting point”?  Did he exist from eternity, but not perform any “activities” until a certain time?  That's hard to swallow, man.

Actually I didnt use “activities” as a part of my arguement.
I wouldnt use it since i dont see the proof to see why activities would be mentioned.
The only reason i argued, is becase you argued about that first.
anyways to answer you logic,
Ok answer this, Genesis 1:1, In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth,  -Isnt this a starting point?

Quote

About the Greek word “aion” being translated as “eternity”, what Young was saying is that it is the same word used by Jesus when he said he would be with us until the end of “aion”.  And that would mean Jesus will be with us until the “END of eternity”.  But “eternity” has no “end”, so the Greek word “aion” is mistranslated when it is rendered as “eternity”.  It really means “eons” or whatever…………but NOT “eternity”.

No, Actually what young said that it doesnt ALWAYS mean eternity.  Again lets say it does for arguement sake, since there is no end to eternity it would be a poetitic way of Jesus saying he would be with us forever.

Quote

Therefore, if we were to solve the dilemma we're having the same way the early church fathers did – by using what the NT writers considered “Holy Scripture” – we'd be done by now and you'd have a new understanding of scripture as a whole.  The LXX was considered “Scripture” by the NT writers and used to solve scriptural disagreements by the early church fathers.  So let's use it for this disagreement, okay?

havent we been doing this already?
more amnesia?

Quote

The LXX says Jesus' “BEGINNING” was from days of “eons ago”.  And if Jesus had a beginning at all, then he is NOT God.  And if he is NOT God, then he is one of the things that exist in heaven that scripture says God CREATED.

I would disagree with the interpretation of beginnings, which could also mean that “he came out of” or “he came from” the “eons ago” or “eternity”
Its like if i were to travel in the past and tell everyone “HEY im from the FUTURE” thats what your trying to say, that Jesus comes into our existance and say “HEY im from a really long time ago” when it really means “HEY my kingdom is not from here, but from above, Im from another plain of existance, im actualy in alien. hi earthlings”

And this whole arguements goes back to Col 1:15 where it says that Jesus created, but no where does it say that God created Jesus.

Quote

Look D, even if you have Micah 5:2 your own way, you still have to deal with Micah 5:4, which says: Jesus will rule in the STRENGTH and MAJESTY of the NAME of YHVH………….HIS GOD!  How does this knowledge fit in with your understanding?

Look mike your trying to kill two birds with one stone, and your not that skilled to do so.
I been focusing only on that Jesus was not created.
So if Micah 5:2 were to go the biblical way of interpretation than it would read that 5:2 does not suggest that Jesus had a beginnning.
My Resolve for this whole thread is that Jesus was not created.
And i have proved that several time
s.

[JustAskin]

SF, Mike,

'Goings Forth'?

What is the problem. 'Goings forth', plural…

Mike, how many times was Jesus 'brought forth as in Childbirth'?

It simply means, like 'ventured out a number of times', like 'Going about on occassions', like 'On Commissions'.
It has nothing to do with 'being created'.
All it shows is that he was in existence (head up, Gene) and was going about doing work that God gave him from times past.

He was going about doing things from antiquity, frm ancient times.

Ancient times does not mean eternity, otherwise it would say, 'Eternity'.

[mikeboll64]

SF:

Quote

Basically mike, I wouldnt used activities either until i see the line of reasoning why they would mention that. Since i havent seen the proof, i wouldnt use it.

Very good, young man.  So then it means either “origin” or “beginning”.  And both of those words mean that Jesus was “caused to exist”.

SF:

Quote

In Hebrew, from the Net it uses this word. mowtsa'ah 1) origin, place of going out from 1a) origin 1b) places of going out to or from 1b1) privy and another site that i have looked at seconds this word.

Again, very good.  Now which one makes the most sense in Micah 5:2?  Was Jesus' “place of going out from” from ancient times?  Was his “privy” from ancient times?  Or could they perhaps have meant his “ORIGIN”?

SF:

Quote

I know you always want to go back to that subject. but Im not trying to prove that Jesus is God in this thread.

Yet YOU are the one who keeps saying things like, “but I think they both are ONE, so that explanation works for me.”  

SF:

Quote

Im proving that Micah 5:2 does not suggest he had a beginning.

Yet you agree that “beginning” IS the correct translation.  

SF:

Quote

Actually it doesnt hang on Michah 5:2 there are plenty of versus that anyone can use to prove otherwise.

Oh yes it does.  Even if Micah 5:2 was the only scripture that teaches Jesus had a beginning, it would be enough.  But we have many more, not to mention all the times he is called the “Son of God”.  If the Son was always present, then why “Son”?  If both Father and Son are co-eternal God, why the titles “Father and Son”?  Anyway, we'll have time to get to all of the other scriptures later. Right now, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of how you can agree that it means “beginning”, yet still fail to see how that describes Jesus being “caused to exist”.

SF:

Quote

this Doctrine of “Jesus was created” a long long time ago, hangs on a few verses like Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14 (which i already disproved) and now Micah 5:2 which however your the only one suggesting that it implies that he had a beginning, and even JA who doesnt believe Jesus is God doesnt agree with you.

You have “disproved” nothing.  Jesus most definitely is the “firstborn of every creature” and “the beginning of the creation of God”.  And no offense to JA, but since when does his OPINION count as “scriptural truth”?    He's trying to explain “goings forth” from an English-only standpoint.  And unlike him, you and I have both done some research into the Hebrew word(s) used, and neither of our “EDUCATED guesses” agree with what he's saying.

SF:

Quote

Ok answer this, Genesis 1:1, In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth,  -Isnt this a starting point?

Absolutely………….why?

SF:

Quote

No, Actually what young said that it doesnt ALWAYS mean eternity.

No, what Young said is that it can't possibly mean “eternity” in Matt 28:20, “so the question arises whether it should ever be so.”

SF:

Quote

havent we been doing this already? more amnesia?

If that is true, then you would just acknowledge that the LXX says Jesus' “BEGINNING was from DAYS OF EONS AGO”.

SF:

Quote

I would disagree with the interpretation of beginnings, which could also mean that “he came out of” or “he came from” the “eons ago” or “eternity”

That's just what I'm going to start calling “pretender talk”.  t8 gave me the idea.  It is “pretender talk” to PRETEND that beginning “could also mean” blah, blah blah.  Beginning means “beginning”……….why must you fight it?  Oh yeah, the “Jesus is God” doctrine insists that you do.

SF:

Quote

And this whole arguements goes back to Col 1:15 where it says that Jesus created,

No scripture anywhere says Jesus created.  You are mistaken D, and I've explained it in the “Fruit” thread.

SF:

Quote

Look mike your trying to kill two birds with one stone, and your not that skilled to do so.

      Is that your way of saying you can't explain away the fact that Micah 5:4 explicitely says Jesus is someone OTHER THAN and LESSOR TO
his God?  That's a bummer for you man, because I have more scriptrures that say the same thing when we're done with that one.

SF:

Quote

My Resolve for this whole thread is that Jesus was not created. And i have proved that several times.

      Your “proof” is, “I think Col 1:15 has nothing to do with the creation of Christ………….because it ruins my “Jesus is God” doctrine.  And for that same reason, I will also ignore or twist the meaning of Rev 3:14.”

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 22 2010,09:55)

It simply means, like 'ventured out a number of times',

Sorry JA,

But SF, I, and almost every Biblical scholar out there disagree with your “opinion” on this subject.  Maybe it's time you check out “WetNanny” so you can get a little background on the meanings of the Hebrew words used before you post your “English-only” opinion about what it “sounds like” to you.

And even if you were right, it still says Jesus didn't “venture out” until “days of antiquity”.  And if he always existed – like SF claims – his “venturing out” would have been from BEFORE “days of antiquity”.  But that's not what it says.

Just a suggestion.

peace and love,
mike

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote

Very good, young man.  So then it means either “origin” or “beginning”.  And both of those words mean that Jesus was “caused to exist”.

Mike your trying awefully hard to change what scripture say into saying that Jesus was created, its says his beginnings/origins are from enternity/eons ago poetitcaly, but it doesnt say he was born, or was created from this exact time.
Your trying to say that this “IMPLIES” that he was created, and it doesnt.

Quote

Again, very good.  Now which one makes the most sense in Micah 5:2?  Was Jesus' “place of going out from” from ancient times?  Was his “privy” from ancient times?  Or could they perhaps have meant his “ORIGIN”?

Now its about making sense, or what the LXX says or what the hebrew actualy says?  So are you letting go of “yalad”
Point is that he came “from”.
Its as if i told you “Im from czechoslovakia” which doesnt exist anymore. or “im from houston” doesnt mean i was born there. You can grow up in a certain place or participate within a place, as JA has said, but doesnt mean you were created.
Again the hebrew seconds what im stating, im not twisting anything.  Im stating simply that it does not “imply” or “elude” that Jesus was created.

Quote

Yet YOU are the one who keeps saying things like, “but I think they both are ONE, so that explanation works for me.”

Ya because you keep on bringing it up as they are seperate persons, but the subject of Micah 5:2 has nothing to do with that.

Quote

Yet you agree that “beginning” IS the correct translation.

I believe that Beginnings is a poetitic way of saying that he has been around sinced the beginning just like the “word” was in the beginnning in John 1:1, the same way you believe that “eternity” is poetitic.

Quote

Oh yes it does.  Even if Micah 5:2 was the only scripture that teaches Jesus had a beginning, it would be enough.  But we have many more, not to mention all the times he is called the “Son of God”.  If the Son was always present, then why “Son”?  If both Father and Son are co-eternal God, why the titles “Father and Son”?  Anyway, we'll have time to get to all of the other scriptures later.  Right now, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of how you can agree that it means “beginning”, yet still fail to see how that describes Jesus being “caused to exist”.

Because your implying its says “Jesus was caused to exist” but it doesnt say that.  It says his beginnigs/origins are from old/antiquity/eternity,
It doesnt say when, nor how, nor if he was created by God, or even before the beginning.
if your implication is correct that it could imply that Jesus was born around my grandmas time which is OLD for me.
Your implying it means he was created.
Yet the phrase before says that he will be BORN in betheleham.  It doesnt folllow with the context, so The Ruler will be born from bethelham who's true beginnigns are from a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away.
This isnt starwars.
God is called the Ancient of Days, The King since Ancient times, yet It doesnt mean he was “caused to exist” a long time ago.  

Quote

You have “disproved” nothing.  Jesus most definitely is the “firstborn of every creature” and “the beginning of the creation of God”.  And no offense to JA, but since when does his OPINION count as “scriptural truth”?    He's trying to explain “goings forth” from an English-only standpoint.  And unlike him, you and I have both done some research into the Hebrew word(s) used, and neither of our “EDUCATED guesses” agree with what he's saying.

I already made my case for First born. and Rev 3:14
I think everyone has a right to say something, but it goes to show that even those who believe that Jesus is not God dont agree with you.  In fact what Scholar does agree with you?
I mean has anyone discovered what you discovered?
I mean im honestly asking, because all my research gets straight to the point that he will be born in Bethleham and he is Jesus who is from eternity.
Its never  used as proof to suggest that Jesus was created.

Quote

SF: Quote Ok answer this, Genesis 1:1, In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth,  -Isnt this a starting point? Absolutely………….why?

The point is that if you believe that God's first Activties had a starting point, yet believe that God is eternal, how in the heck do you come to the conclusion that Jesus who participated in the creation of the world in the beginning of time, was created just because he made acts in the beginning?
So was God BORN or caused to exist because of his first acts?

Quote

Quote But even if we go with “activities”, it clearly implies that there was a “starting point” to Jesus' activities, and therefore a “starting point” for Jesus. That would be a conjecture. It would be implying that just because Jesus started to be “active” in finite space, thats when he started, but we dont know if he has activities in “infinite” space.   Just because he take action in the beginning of time doesnt mean he was created at that time.  You cant just say well just because I started to accomplish my purpose of being a firefighter at 36 years old thats the day i was born?

This is the arguement you presented before, in betw
een your rampages of posts towards me.  If this means that Jesus was caused to exist by his first acts than that would also mean that God was caused to exist because of his first acts in Genesis 1:1.

Quote

No, what Young said is that it can't possibly mean “eternity” in Matt 28:20, “so the question arises whether it should ever be so.”

However, there are notable exceptions to this in all major translations, such as Matthew 28:20….
so the question arises whether it should ever be so.
I would like to see the rest of the Article to understand that.
And “the path of truth” give simliar explanations of that.
But the point is that there are execptions, not that it literally means every single greek/hebrew Olam/Aion means only a partial of time.

Quote

If that is true, then you would just acknowledge that the LXX says Jesus' “BEGINNING was from DAYS OF EONS AGO”.

No because you want to imply that Eternity is just a poetitics, so the same can be done for beginnings.
even the Context of the Word “arche” represents that fact.
arche 1) beginning, origin
ek 1) out of, from, by, away from
so it wouldnt matter if it did only say beginning,
The very next word represents everything that i have been telling you.
and I bet the LXX writers never meant for that verse to mean that Jesus had a beginning.

Quote

That's just what I'm going to start calling “pretender talk”.  t8 gave me the idea.  It is “pretender talk” to PRETEND that beginning “could also mean” blah, blah blah.  Beginning means “beginning”……….why must you fight it?  Oh yeah, the “Jesus is God” doctrine insists that you do.

Actualy it has nothing to do with that, becauese the word also goes hand and hand with Origins, and the Hebrew translations also means the same thing, that “he came out from”.  

Quote

No scripture anywhere says Jesus created.  You are mistaken D, and I've explained it in the “Fruit” thread.

What the heck Mike, You want to focus so much that God created things “through” Jesus. Whether Through or by, the fact is that Jesus created and period.
IF you want to believe that Jesus is the Tool and God is the builder, no matter how much you want to say that the builider created, the truth is he couldnt do it without his tools. Even though I believe they are one and the same, and since you believe them to be seperate persons, you cannot say that Jesus did not create.

Quote

Is that your way of saying you can't explain away the fact that Micah 5:4 explicitely says Jesus is someone OTHER THAN and LESSOR TO his God?  That's a bummer for you man, because I have more scriptrures that say the same thing when we're done with that one.

No, This is my way of saying stick to the subject in hand. You always deviate to a new topic.  in other words untopical.

Quote

Your “proof” is, “I think Col 1:15 has nothing to do with the creation of Christ………….because it ruins my “Jesus is God” doctrine.  And for that same reason, I will also ignore or twist the meaning of Rev 3:14.”

Look Mike before you start beating your chest and getting all puffed up, you need leave the Ad hominens aside and stick to the arguements.
And my aguements are effective to prove not what i think, but facts about Col 1:15, and about Jesus preminence, and Rev 3:14 that doesnt include any context.
You can laugh, and point fingers Mike all you want, but it doest make anything what you say, true.

Here is what the Netwanny says,
First born
1 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,  
2 tn The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prwtotokos) could refer either to first in order of time, such as a first born child, or it could refer to one who is preeminent in rank. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (EGGNT), 43, expresses the meaning of the word well: “The ‘firstborn’ was either the eldest child in a family or a person of preeminent rank. The use of this term to describe the Davidic king in Ps 88:28 LXX (=Ps 89:27 EVV), ‘I will also appoint him my firstborn (πρωτότοκον), the most exalted of the kings of the earth,’ indicates that it can denote supremacy in rank as well as priority in time. But whether the πρωτό- element in the word denotes time, rank, or both, the significance of the -τοκος element as indicating birth or origin (from τίκτω, give birth to) has been virtually lost except in ref. to lit. birth.” In Col 1:15 the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus’ rank as over and above creation (cf. 1:16 and the “for” clause referring to Jesus as Creator).

3 tn The genitive construction πάσης κτίσεως (pash” ktisew”) is a genitive of subordination and is therefore translated as “over all creation.” See ExSyn 103-4.

Rev 3:14
“To  the angel of the church in Laodicea write the following: “This is the solemn pronouncement of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the originator of God’s creation:
4 tn Or “the beginning of God’s creation”; or “the ruler of God’s creation.” From a linguistic standpoint all three meanings for ἀρχή (arch) are possible. The term is well attested in both LXX (Gen 40:13, 21; 41:13) and intertestamental Jewish literature (2 Macc 4:10, 50) as meaning “ruler, authority” (BDAG 138 s.v. 6). Some have connected this passage to Paul’s statements in Col 1:15, 18 which describe Christ as ἀρχή and πρωτότοκος (prwtotoko”; e.g., see R. H. Mounce, Revelation [NICNT], 124) but the term ἀρχή has been understood as either “beginning” or “ruler” in that passage as well. The most compelling connection is to be found in the prologue to John’s Gospel (1:2-4) where the λόγος (logos) is said to be “in the beginning (ἀρχή) with God,” a temporal reference connected with creation, and then v. 3 states that “all
things were made through him.” The connection with the original creation suggests the meaning “originator” for ἀρχή here. BDAG 138 s.v. 3 gives the meaning “the first cause” for the word in Rev 3:14, a term that is too philosophical for the general reader, so the translation “originator” was used instead. BDAG also notes, “but the mng. beginning = ‘first created’ is linguistically probable (s. above 1b and Job 40:19; also CBurney, Christ as the ᾿Αρχή of Creation: JTS 27, 1926, 160-77).” Such a meaning is unlikely here, however, since the connections described above are much more probable.
It Seems that im not crazy, and even the Netbible agrees.
And when i started this thread it was all research WITHOUT  the NET bible.  Yet we have reached the same conclusions.
Everything that the Net says, i have also proven in details before, in this thread.

Just because you said that i havent proven anything, is in implication that i havent, when the truth is that i have dedicated this whole thread with all the evidences that i have to prove otherwise.  
So lets not imply, i have shown proof.
If you cant take Aion to mean eternity, who are you to say that Firstborn really means what it means.
And with the greek interpretation of beginnings depends on the context.  For example “Well i started in houston” I started what in houston? and it doesnt mean I was born in houston, and it doesnt mean i was ever created.  To say otherwise would be a conjecture or assuming.
“I was born in houston” This is a direct statement that states i was born literally in houston.

Micha 5:2 is PROOF that Jesus the Ruler will be born in Bethlaham.  This is what the subject is about, who happens to be more than just human, and more than anything we can really imagine, this guy is not from our world.

It has nothing to do with Jesus being created before day one, nor that he was ever created.
This is all conjecture Mike, and im tired of fighting with insults and poking, and provoking you.
Let me just plainly say, that to say this verse means anything else than what it says is conjecture and twisting of scripture.
It means what it says.

I can understand what and why you think what it means but it doesnt, Mike no matter how you want to put it, it just Doesnt.
This is not proof that Jesus was created.

Much Love mike,

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 19 2010,12:11)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2010,02:31) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 17 2010,19:57) A. Again What translation are you using, and if you would like lets go back to the hebrew of this passage. im going to post KJV Det4:15Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 16Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 17The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, 18The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: 19And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. And even the context on 28-29 speak of gods who cant speak and that are man-made. I would strictly say that in this passage that we should not worship any Graven Images, Images created by Man to worship a God. Hi Dennison, Let me get this straight…….is it YOUR contention that God was saying it was okay to worship men and animals and stars and such, as long as we didn't worship “IMAGES” or “LIKENESSES” of those things? And I don't know of any scripture that specifically says, “You CAN'T worship Jesus”.  But I think that's clearly implied by the OT saying “Worship and serve ONLY Jehovah”, and that command is driven home in the NT where Jesus himself repeats it. mike I didnt make any contention mike. I Just think the point of the SPECFIC scripture you mentioned was in reference in man made images that Men worshipped. In ACTUALITY, everything that MAN worshiped they carved into stone.  They make some sort of relic of it eventually, and pay homage to it evetually.   People worshiped volcanoes and had images of the demon God that supposed to lived there. They worshiped the Sun and made a beastly image of Ra or a human image of Apollo. Usually human makes manmade images of what they worship. The scripture you specfically mention talks about such things. Psalms also talks about the stupid idols that cant do anything for them because they cant move, hear, or speak. Romans 1 talks about these same idols and how people worshiped beastly corruptable things. My contentions it to talk about what the scripture is really referring to. Jesus said DONT follow other people who claim to be Jesus! This is almost connected to be in the same logic. Where does it say in the NT that Jesus said we must worship God only? i just want to see what scripture your referring to.

Hi Mike,
I been wanting to respond to this correctly for the longest time to your reference to “Graven Images”

Isaiah 40
18To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?
19The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains.
20He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved.
21Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

Isaiah 44
8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
9They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.
10Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?

And the reason why I post these scriptures is to show that People in ancient times only worshiped “what they can see and touch”
Every god they worshiped had an image, and if you study other religions and ancient religions, every god had in image. Even Ceaser and the Empereors and even Ra, Apollo, who is the Sun.
You have to understand how people only belived by seeing, and not by faith.
The Hebrews also commited that same error when they made the golden Calf.
You have to understand the psychological belief system they had back than, where the gods were made of gold and silver and the WHOLE economy of the world were moved by these religions and pagan beliefs and homages.

Psalm 115
1 Not to us, O LORD, not to us
      but to your name be the glory,
      because of your love and faithfulness.
2 Why do the nations say,
      “Where is their God?”
3 Our God is in heaven;
      he does whatever pleases him.
4 But their idols are silver and gold,
      made by the hands of men.
5 They have mouths, but cannot speak,
      eyes, but they cannot see;
6 they have ears, but cannot hear,
      noses, but they cannot smell;
7 they have hands, but cannot feel,
      feet, but they cannot walk;
      nor can they utter a sound with their throats.
8 Those who make them will be like them,
      and so will all who trust in them.

Thats why God was So MAD at people for doing such a dumb thing. this is what Romans 1 refers to.
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
The Stupidity of Humanity

[mikeboll64]

Hi D,

You said:

Quote

Mike your trying awefully hard to change what scripture say into saying that Jesus was created, its says his beginnings/origins are from enternity/eons ago poetitcaly, but it doesnt say he was born, or was created from this exact time. Your trying to say that this “IMPLIES” that he was created, and it doesnt.

Listen very carefully D.  Is God EVER said to have an “origin” or a “beginning”?  NO.  Is Jesus?  YES.

You can put whatever spin on “beginning” that you want, but if the scripture says Jesus' “beginning” was from days of antiquity, then he had a “BEGINNING”.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 22 2010,17:02)

Point is that he came “from”. Its as if i told you “Im from czechoslovakia” which doesnt exist anymore.

So you think the scripture is saying that “the place Jesus came out from” was “from days of antiquity”? If not, then please drop the “place of going out from” definition, as it is nothing but a diversion.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 22 2010,17:02)

Ya because you keep on bringing it up as they are seperate persons, but the subject of Micah 5:2 has nothing to do with that.

Is this a case of, “HE STARTED IT, DAD!” ?

All I'm saying is that if you are going to say, “I think they are one and the same”, then you are making this thread about “Jesus is God”…………..and I will respond accordingly.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 22 2010,17:02)

I believe that Beginnings is a poetitic way of saying that he has been around sinced the beginning just like the “word” was in the beginnning in John 1:1, the same way you believe that “eternity” is poetitic.

I don't believe “eternity” is “poetic”. I believe that “eternity” is a mistranslation of the Greek word “aion”.

SF:

Quote

However, there are notable exceptions to this in all major translations, such as Matthew 28:20…. so the question arises whether it should ever be so. I would like to see the rest of the Article to understand that. And “the path of truth” give simliar explanations of that. But the point is that there are execptions, not that it literally means every single greek/hebrew Olam/Aion means only a partial of time.

I don't remember where Shimmer first posted it………you can ask her. She posted the link as I remember.

And you are misreading what Young wrote. He said that one of the “exceptions” was Matt 28:20. It was an EXCEPTION because all major translations DON'T render the word “aion” as “eternity” in this verse. And he was saying that if they all make the “exception” of translating it as “end of the age” in Matt 28:20, then he wonders if it should EVER be translated as “eternity”.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 22 2010,17:02)

Because your implying its says “Jesus was caused to exist” but it doesnt say that. It says his beginnigs/origins are from old/antiquity/eternity,

Your two sentences don't even make sense together D-Linquent.

You say I imply “caused to exist”, but it only speaks of his “beginning”.

Wasn't your “beginning” at the exact point in time you were “caused to exist”? Was the earth's “beginning” refer to the time it was “caused to exist”?

I don't get you. You are being honest with yourself that it means “beginning”, yet in light of this knowledge, you are struggling to make the word “beginning” mean something other than “a point when something was caused to exist”.

SF:

Quote

if your implication is correct that it could imply that Jesus was born around my grandmas time which is OLD for me.

Not unless your grandma's time was before Micah's. Jesus beginning was “from days of antiquity” from the standpoint of Micah………not us. And Micah 5:2 doesn't imply Jesus was created……..only that he had a beginning.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 22 2010,17:02)

So was God BORN or caused to exist because of his first acts?

Scripture never says God's “beginning” was from a certain point in time, does it?

SF:

Quote

No because you want to imply that Eternity is just a poetitics, so the same can be done for beginnings. even the Context of the Word “arche” represents that fact. arche 1) beginning, origin ek 1) out of, from, by, away from so it wouldnt matter if it did only say beginning, The very next word represents everything that i have been telling you. and I bet the LXX writers never meant for that verse to mean that Jesus had a beginning.

Try again in English please. And if the LXX writers didn't mean “beginning”, they wouldn't have wrote “beginning”.

SF:

Quote

Actualy it has nothing to do with that, becauese the word also goes hand and hand with Origins, and the Hebrew translations also means the same thing, that “he came out from”.

And once again, I must ask: Do you think the scripture was saying that the “place Jesus went out from” was “from days of antiquity”?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 22 2010,17:02)

What the heck Mike, You want to focus so much that God created things “through” Jesus. Whether Through or by, the fact is that Jesus created and period. IF you want to believe that Jesus is the Tool and God is the builder, no matter how much you want to say that the builider created, the truth is he couldnt do it without his tools. Even though I believe they are one and the same, and since you believe them to be seperate persons, you cannot say that Jesus did not create.

Just stick with scripture D. I can't explain the “through”. But I know for a fact that Jehovah is the ONLY one EVER given credit for the creation. Read the prayer in Acts 4. Peter and John make very clear that God made the heavens and the earth and everything in them. Then the last line of the prayer makes it clear that Jesus is the “servant” of God they prayed THROUGH……..not the God they were praying TO.

It's in the scriptures D. Just follow them and believe them and all will be okay for you.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 22 2010,17:02)

No, This is my way of saying stick to the subject in hand. You always deviate to a new topic. in other words untopical.

Well, you've brought up the “Jesus is God” thing in this thread already. And Micah 5:4 nips it in the bud like a big dog. When will we discuss this scripture? Should I start a thread? Yes………..I believe I will. Will I see you there? I hope so.

SF:

Quote

Look Mike before you start beating your chest and getting all puffed up, you need leave the Ad hominens aside and stick to the arguements.

Did you really just use two ad hominems in your sentence designed to scold me about using them?

SF:

Quote

Here is what the Netwanny says,

Listen D. You have to realize that NETNotes, along with almost every other theological publication in existence, is from a trinitarian point of view. So while they have some great information, you have to judge which things are “real”, from which things are just slung together to eliminate any possibility that their “God #2” had a beginning. If you look up “holy spirit” in NETNotes, they list “the third person in the trinity Godhead” as one of their definitions. It is up to us to decide if that's a reasonable definition based on scriptural and cultural knowledge, or if it's just a way to sneak an unsubstantiated “trinity proof” in.

SF:

Quote

Let me just plainly say, that to say this verse means anything else than what it says is conjecture and twisting of scripture. It means what it says. I can understand what and why you think what it means but it doesnt, Mike no matter how you want to put it, it just Doesnt. This is not proof that Jesus was created.

You are right. It does say what it says. And it is NOT proof that Jesus was created. It IS, however, proof that Jesus had a beginning.

Now, are you ready to move on to the scripture that actually fits into your thread?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Hi All,

The following is a prayer that Peter and John made in Acts 4:

24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
  ” 'Why do the nations rage
     and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth take their stand
     and the rulers gather together
     against the Lord
     and against his Anointed One.' 27Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. 29Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. 30Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”

There are only a few simple points that need to be made here.

1.  It is GOD ALONE who is credited with the creation in verse 24.
2.  Jesus is distinguished as someone OTHER THAN God, who is in fact a “SERVANT” of God, in verse 30.
3.  This prayer was made AFTER Jesus was raised to the right hand of his God, and had been given “all power and authority”.
4.  Jesus is one of the “things” in heaven that GOD ALONE is given credit for “making”, for it says God made the heavens………”AND EVERYTHING IN THEM”.

So, is Jesus a “creation” of his God?

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 22 2010,17:17)

Hi Mike, I been wanting to respond to this correctly for the longest time to your reference to “Graven Images”

Hi D,

First, it's off topic.  Second, I don't think God's intention was to say we are not to worship handmade idols……………..but it's okay to worship real live people and things, do you?  The point is to worship ONLY God, and nothing or no one else.

If you'd like to discuss this more, go to the “whom shall we worship” thread.  Pierre, Irene, Kathi and I are having a lively discussion about it there.  

ps  The reason I break the posts down into smaller ones is so others can follow and add their input to our discussions.  I don't think most people read the super huge posts.  So it's not to make you mad, it's to keep it “one point per post” to the best of my ability.

peace and love,
mike

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 24 2010,08:28)

Hi D, You said: Quote Mike your trying awefully hard to change what scripture say into saying that Jesus was created, its says his beginnings/origins are from enternity/eons ago poetitcaly, but it doesnt say he was born, or was created from this exact time. Your trying to say that this “IMPLIES” that he was created, and it doesnt. Listen very carefully D.  Is God EVER said to have an “origin” or a “beginning”?  NO.  Is Jesus?  YES. You can put whatever spin on “beginning” that you want, but if the scripture says Jesus' “beginning” was from days of antiquity, then he had a “BEGINNING”. mike

1.Hi Mike,
I saw your last comment that you didnt do this purpously to annoy me.  
Ok fine but we will do this in a organized fashion.
I will put a number  on top to show to what point we are talking about.

Actually Mike You say that God is the Alpha and the Omega, and he is also called the First and the Last in Isaiah the only God.
So he is called the BEGINNING, doesnt mean he HAS a beginning.
The spin on scripture comes from yourself, and your conjecture that this verse implies that “Jesus the Ruler who will be BORN IN THE small bethlahem, whose beginnings/origins comes out from antiquity/Eternity/long time ago”
None of this suggest he had a beginning nor that he was created.
The Scripture is clear that he is not of this plain of existence, that he is not from this time, nor truely from bethelaham, but from another world.

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 24 2010,08:33)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 22 2010,17:02) Point is that he came “from”. Its as if i told you “Im from czechoslovakia” which doesnt exist anymore. So you think the scripture is saying that “the place Jesus came out from” was “from days of antiquity”?  If not, then please drop the “place of going out from” definition, as it is nothing but a diversion. mike

2.The only reason why dont like when you cut up my posts because you ignore other valid points i made.
It seems like you “dropped” “yalad” from your last rampage of posts?????/ Sounds like a diversion to me, since you didnt answer my question.

Actualy what scripture is saying is that “this Ruler will be born in bethlehem, and he is not from this world”

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 24 2010,08:35)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 22 2010,17:02) Ya because you keep on bringing it up as they are seperate persons, but the subject of Micah 5:2 has nothing to do with that. Is this a case of, “HE STARTED IT, DAD!” ?   All I'm saying is that if you are going to say, “I think they are one and the same”, then you are making this thread about “Jesus is God”…………..and I will respond accordingly. mike

3Well basically,
I still have the ability to do that at my age
This thread is about IF Jesus was created or not.
And he was not.
Since you always want to go back to that point of course thats going to be my response.

[Author]

Posts